| JoeCustoms.com https://joecustoms.com/forums/ |
|
| Rocker ankles https://joecustoms.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=33786 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | Lance Sputnik [ Tue Jun 12, 2012 9:10 am ] |
| Post subject: | Rocker ankles |
So am I the only one who sort of hates the rocker ankles? I'd much rather have my figures be able to rotate their feet than be able to sway side to side. The only figure I have so far with these ankles is Scarlett, but I keep finding that I miss the old way. |
|
| Author: | notpicard [ Tue Jun 12, 2012 9:34 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Rocker ankles |
I don't hate them and I don't love them. It can make it such that they cannot move toes of their feet in order to fit properly in vehicles. I think that they need to just be careful of when to do which kind. What is worse is that wv2 Retaliation Snake Eyes cannot move the tip of his feet up at all. 90 degrees is as good as it gets. But to move him prone or swimming they move amazingly far. Still, I see it as fine in this case because we have already had a bazillion SE figures. Making him different in some way is good. It just needs a bit of trimming to the area at the front bottom of the lower leg. That way SE is capable of being posed in a running position. I think that Marvel figures with rocker ankles were fine because they added a swivel at the top of the calf, eliminating the need for it below. I only have it on Cable and Doctor Strange. That certainly means that the rocker ankle can increase articulation, but it doesn't happen all the time. Rocker ankles are not an increase in articulation imo. They are just different articulation. |
|
| Author: | Chief [ Tue Jun 12, 2012 10:02 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Rocker ankles |
They'd be fine if the ankles swiveled as well (or tops of the boots, or whatever), but in lieu of swivel ankles, I think they suck. Seems like at least the MU figs I have with rocker ankles also have a joint at the calf, so they're tolerable (Cable, Cyke/Namor/Steve/etc.) But not liking the way the Joes are set up thus far. |
|
| Author: | pluv [ Tue Jun 12, 2012 10:05 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Rocker ankles |
It is certainly one of those things where I wouldn't want it on every figure but I do like it on the few who have had it. |
|
| Author: | J_Man [ Tue Jun 12, 2012 10:26 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Rocker ankles |
They're ok sometimes. I'm not one that really necessarily needs ankle articulation though. Static feet are fine since it's usually hard to get them to hold a pose with the ankle joint extended. Even on a peg, they seem unbalanced. But for Snake Eyes and other figures like that, or Spiderman... I'm fine with it. |
|
| Author: | Redmao [ Tue Jun 12, 2012 11:56 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Rocker ankles |
It's fun, but I like the ball jointed ankles like on the 25th/PoC figures. |
|
| Author: | kHAoS [ Tue Jun 12, 2012 1:43 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Rocker ankles |
I like the rocker ankles on SE and SS so far. I don't need it on every fig, but it's been good on the figs that have had them. My main gripe about ankle articulation in general is if Hasbro is going to go through the trouble to adding it, then make sure the fig can get into a crouching position. And none of the figs can do it since the ankle can't pivot as far as I want it to. It's the same thing regarding the elbows, although it's gotten better, the forearms hover across the chest but can't actually touch the chest. |
|
| Author: | sgartz [ Tue Jun 12, 2012 1:45 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Rocker ankles |
I'm not into them, either, as currently used. I appreciate the fact that they're trying new things with articulation, and the rocker ankles have the potential to increase it; but as mentioned, without some way to rotate the ankle horizontally, they actually limit the figure's ability to be posed in all but a few positions. If you want the figure to be posed in a dramatically wide stance, they're great; if not, you're going to be disappointed. The good news is that it's pretty easy to remove them and replace them with the previous style of foot. |
|
| Author: | evilchuk1 [ Tue Jun 12, 2012 2:55 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Rocker ankles |
Chief wrote: They'd be fine if the ankles swiveled as well (or tops of the boots, or whatever), but in lieu of swivel ankles, I think they suck. This. |
|
| Author: | drbindy [ Tue Jun 12, 2012 4:18 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Rocker ankles |
Chief wrote: They'd be fine if the ankles swiveled as well (or tops of the boots, or whatever), but in lieu of swivel ankles, I think they suck. Seems like at least the MU figs I have with rocker ankles also have a joint at the calf, so they're tolerable (Cable, Cyke/Namor/Steve/etc.) But not liking the way the Joes are set up thus far. I agree with this. I've even added rocker ankles to a couple of customs, but only when there was also a lower leg swivel. I find that to stand a figure with them otherwise, I have to put them in a near crouch. Still, I can tolerate it on some more than others, even with Joes. |
|
| Author: | Cap [ Tue Jun 12, 2012 5:07 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Rocker ankles |
The term "necessary evil" comes to mind, when forced to use them because most other avenues are limited. LIke the MU leg bolts. SW figures have the workings on the inside which I prefer, but the knee bend is only good to a 90 degree. A MU leg will go past that, but has that bolt to deal with, like the RAH elbow rivet. |
|
| Author: | AdrienVeidt [ Tue Jun 12, 2012 7:50 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Rocker ankles |
I'm frankly surprised by all the negative answers. I'm *always* in favor of my figs moving as realistically as possible, and there's simply no swivel motion in any healthy human being's calf between ankle and knee, so the supra-ankle or mid-calf swivel joint is simply an incorrect joint (altho I wouldn't mind it in ultra-flexy guys like Spidey or Secret Six's Dollman). It's a waste of material and money, imho. The rockers are *AWESOME*. However, most people have a slight outward twist to the calf so the feet naturally form a 30-degree angle, or thereabouts. Having them straight forward is incorrect for most humans, altho I've heard such a thing is more common amongst Native Americans (as an anecdote from history class, in that it's how they could track white men due to their angled footprints being discernable from their own forward footprints. I claim no authority in this idea's factuality, since I'd think the diff between booted and moccassined footprints would be most obvious). I dunno what y'all are talking about, being unable to get them into vehicles, tho. |
|
| Author: | dasaffe [ Tue Jun 12, 2012 8:22 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Rocker ankles |
I dig what you're saying Adrien, but I find the rocker angles to be more limiting than the swivel-hinge ankles from the 25th era. The old ankles were better for twisting about for balancing the figure in hunching poses and the like. I also don't like that the feet can only be posed one way when the figure is standing straight up, minimizing the controposto posing you can do. |
|
| Author: | Greyryder [ Tue Jun 12, 2012 10:28 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Rocker ankles |
AdrienVeidt wrote: I'm frankly surprised by all the negative answers. I'm *always* in favor of my figs moving as realistically as possible, and there's simply no swivel motion in any healthy human being's calf between ankle and knee, so the supra-ankle or mid-calf swivel joint is simply an incorrect joint (altho I wouldn't mind it in ultra-flexy guys like Spidey or Secret Six's Dollman). It's a waste of material and money, imho. The rockers are *AWESOME*. Uh, what!? Yes there is. That part of the leg is made just like the forearm. There is rotation there. But! (there's always a but) It just doesn't get used a lot. Most people will keep their feet relatively in line with their knees. So, like you, I see no real need for that joint in an action figure. What I would really like to see, is a thigh swivel. Without it, figures get to looking a little knock kneed, in some poses. But, I digress. I will gladly second the "awesome" opinion for rocker ankles. The old arrangement screwed up too many cool poses by either one leg needing to be awkwardly placed to peg into a stand, or from the feet being on edge. Nobody stands like that. Give me the rocker ankles. |
|
| Author: | AdrienVeidt [ Wed Jun 13, 2012 8:21 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Rocker ankles |
Nope, sorry, man; there's no swivel motion between the ankle and knee. In many people the fibula doesn't even come all the way down to connect to the ankle to form the radius/ulna relationship of the forearm, with the tibia being far too thick and necessary for simply holding the body up to permit twisting like in the forearm bones. Any swivel motion of the foot is done by the bottom half of the ankle where the tarsals connect, and that's not really swivel motion so much as it is rotation under. Put your foot flat on the floor with your calf perpendicular above it (while sitting, so you don't fall over) and try to swivel your foot while keeping the sole completely in contact with the floor. Most people will find it uncomfortable and difficult to keep the foot from rotating such that the sole loses complete contact, esp when swiveled outwards. They're weird joints with weird movements, which neither of the diff Joe ankles fully captures; but the rockers come much closer to proper human motion. Hasbro needs to figure out how to twist the calves after molding so the Joe feet point outwards a bit for even closer adherence to the human norm, or just insert the ankle discs into the mold at that angle, which is much easier I'd think. |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|